Kolkata Court August 1900 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Parsi Hajra Vs. Bandhi Dhanuk and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal251
Prinsep, J.1.The complainant was that the accused had in an unlawful assembly looted crops from the kamar of the complainant's master. The Magistrate has acquitted the accused and ordered the complainant to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 125 to the accused, or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. The law in Section 250, provision (2), is so clear that it is only if the compensation ordered to be paid cannot be recovered that imprisonment can be awarded, and this has been so often pointed out in reported cases, that we are surprised that the Magistrate should have summarily passed the order of imprisonment before any attempt was made towards recovery of the sum ordered to be paid as compensation. The order of imprisonment is therefore clearly bad. But we think that this was not a case in which an order for compensation could be properly passed. The law provides that compensation may be ordered, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the accusation was frivolous and ve...
isab Mandal Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal348
Stevens J.1. This rule was issued in the following circumstances: The police began an investigation into a case of murder, but while that investigation was pending, on a representation made by the District Superintendent to the District Magistrate, the Deputy Magistrate, Babu Bhowany Prosad Neogi, was sent to make an inquiry into that case and into a counter-charge which had been made, as we understand, against the informant in that case. The Deputy Magistrate accordingly went to the spot and instituted an inquiry. In the course that of inquiry, he examined the present petitioner as a witness, and, in consequence of the statements which he made on that occasion, he confronted him with a written statement which had been taken down by the Sub-Inspector of Police under the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Deputy Magistrate after asking the petitioner whether he had made a certain statement to the Sub-Inspector, recorded a note that the witness was evidently...
NaraIn Chandra Boral Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal152
Maclean, C.J.1. This appeal must succeed. Speaking with all deference I feel some difficulty in appreciating the principle of the judgment of the lower Court. The learned Judge seems to me to have missed the real point in the case which shortly is this: The Secretary ofState has under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act taken the requisite steps to acquire certain land including two tanks in the neighbourhood of Calcutta. The present appellant says that he is a yearly tenant at an annual rent of Rs. 125 of those tanks, and has been many years in possession of them as such yearly tenant. He is a fisherman by trade, he takes leases of tanks for the purpose of fishing, and makes, as he says, a substantial profit by his trade. He tells us in his petition how he makes a considerable profit by stocking the tanks with fish, catching the fish, and then selling them. Under these circumstances he says he is an annual tenant of these tanks and claims to be compensated by the Government for...
Sourindra Mohun Tagore Vs. Siromoni Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal171
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bankura, dated the 26th of September 1899.2. The facts of the case are these. A suit for arrears of rent was brought by one Bishnu Churn Kaviraj, the Manager of the Dhalbhoom encumbered estate, against the defendant, Raja Sir Sourindra Mohun Tagore. During the pendency of the suit the estate in question was released from the management of buBishnu Churn Kaviraj and an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner directing the proprietor of the property to take over charge of it. The question then arose as to who was to carry on the suit against Raja Sir Sourindra Mohun Tagore. The Ranis of Raja Ram Chunder Deo Dhabal Deb applied to be made plaintiffs under Section 372; and an order was passed to that effect by the Subordinate Judge.3. The defendant, Raja Sourindra Mohun Tagore, now appeals to this Court and contends that the Subordinate Judge was not right in disallowing his objections to the substitution of the Ranis as ...
Nritya Gopal Hazra Vs. Golam Rasool and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal180
Maclean, C.J.1. The question raised upon this appeal is a short one, and not, to my mind, one that persents any real difficulty. The real question is, whether the application made by the defendant No. 4, who was an auction-purchaser, requesting the Collector to serve on the incumbrancer a notice declaring that the incumbrance is annulled, was presented by him to the Collector, under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, within the period prescribed by that section. Defendant No. 4 was doubtless entitled under Sub-section 2 of Section 165 of the Act, to have the incumbrance annulled, for that sub-section says: 'He' (the auction-purchaser) 'may in manner provided by Section 167 and not otherwise annul any incumbrance on the tenure or holding.'2. We have to consider whether he has complied with the provisions of Section 167, for it is only by compliance with the provisions of that section that he is entitled under the statute to annul the incumbrance on the tenure or holding.3. Section 1...
Nalinakshya Ghosal Vs. Mafakshar HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal177
Rampini, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 7th September 1898. This decision disallows an appeal to him against an order of the Munsif of Kalna, dated 7th February 1898 under Section 206 of the Code of Civil Procedure amending a decree of the Additional Munsif of Kalna, dated the 17th September 1891, which, in his opinion, was not in conformity with the judgment. The Subordinate Judge ismissed the appeal preferred to him on the ground that the Munsif's order amending the decree was right.2. Against this dismissal of his appeal the plaintiff now prefers this second appeal.3. We are of opinion that no second appeal lies to us against an order under Section 206. An order under Section 206 is not a decree. No provision for an appeal from such an order is made in Section 588. Hence, it would seem that no appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge and no second appeal lies to us. The plaintiff's remedy, if any, would seem to be by an applicat...
Sarat Chunder Singh Vs. Nitye Sunder Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal1013
Stanley, J.1. Under these circumstances an application was made to me with a view to having such proceedings directed as might be necessary for the purpose of terminating the suit, and upon the hearing of that application I came to the conclusion that the only course open to the parties in the event of their not agreeing to the appointment of another arbitrator to determine all matters left undetermined was to proceed with the suit according to the ordinary course of the Court, and I accordingly directed that the suit should proceed and that any of the defendants, if so advised, should be at liberty to tile written statements. Written statements have been filed by two of the parties, viz., the Administrator General of Bengal who now represents the deceased Indra Chunder Singh and on the part also of Srish Chunder Singh.2. Upon the case coming on for hearing a question was raised as to what matters remained to be determined in the action. There was some suggestion that evidence might be...
Madan Mohun Saha and ors. Vs. Rajab Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal223
1. This suit relates to an old silted-up tank which has recently been improved at considerable expense by the principal defendants for the benefit of the village at large.2. It appears that before the tank was leased to these defendants it lay practically useless, and the rank grass which grew thereon was taken by the second party defendants for feeding their elephants. Now that the silted-up tank has been improved by the principal defendants, the plaintiffs bring this suit for the purpose of obtaining hkas possession jointly with the lessors, or with the lessees as the Court may direct. Their case is that they are fractional sharers of the land in which this tank is situated. According to their own statement they are owners of a three anna eleven gunda share only, whilst the lessor defendants own more than twelve annas. It has been found by both the Lower Courts that the lessor defendants were in exclusive possession of this silted-up tank, and made use of it for their elephants, the ...
NizamuddIn Vs. MamtazuddIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal135
1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession from the principal defendants of 3 kedars of land appertaining to taluk Lakhan Deb; that the plaintiffs had purchased the same from the vendor defendants who, not having executed a kobala, were sued therefor; and upon a decree obtained by the plaintiffs the kobala was executed by them in respect of the said land. They further allege that the principal defendants were holding the lands in question under the vendors of the plaintiffs, under a bhagidar jote right, and that after the execution of the kobala they asked the defendants to give them possession, and upon their refusal to do so they bring this suit to obtain khas possession. They base their cause of action upon the refusal, and put the date as the 19th of POUS 1302 B.S., the date of their purchase; and also the 5th of Joist 1303 (17th May 1896) when the princpial defendants were verbally requested to give up the lands.2. The de...
A.T. Ricketts, Manager of Pachete Encumbered Estate Vs. Rameswar Malia ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal109
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 23rd of June 1898.2. The suit is one for arrears of road and public works cesses. The plaintiff states that the amount of cesses due per annum from the defendants is Rs. 28. The defendants say that the sum they are liable to pay on this account is Rs. 5-9 1/2 annas only.3. The Subordinate Judge has given effect to the contention of the defendants. He says that in two previous suits the plaintiff had recovered cesses from the defendants at the rate of Rs. 5-9 1/2 annas, and that, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover cesses at a higher rate than Rs. 5-9 1/2 annas which has hitherto been decreed and realized on behalf of the plaintiffs.4. In addition to these previous decrees there is a valuation roll, Exhibit I, produced as evidence in the case, upon which the Court of first instance relied, and according to which the Munsif says the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 28 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »